Talk:National Airlines Flight 102

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Aviation: Accidents

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

This article is supported by the Aviation accident project.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Afghanistan Low‑importance

	Afghanistan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Afghanistan, a project to maintain and expand Afghanistan-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AfghanistanWikipedia:WikiProject AfghanistanTemplate:WikiProject AfghanistanAfghanistan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disaster management Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because it was not created by a banned user (I am not banned and was never banned) --Herodes111 (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --Kristijh (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing CSD...because

Of all idiotic reasons to remove this article, this one takes the cake. This is a very notable aircrash of a huge jet with complete loss of life aboard. And I uploaded the jet's picture earlier in anticipation of this article happening. Now I intend to add it and do other edits to make it better. Case closed. --Mareklug ^talk

Do you have the copyright for that picture? It seems that you copied it from airliners.net..... --Herodes111 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of facts

This article seems to imply that the absent nose cargo door may have contributed to the crash. This uninformed statement is highly misleading to say the least.

It is beyond me how it is possible to create a serious(?) encyclopedic article without known and confirmed facts and while the wreckage is still smoldering.

If this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, then please make it one. This requires careful research of the facts and accurate language. No speculation of any kind shall made it into an article.

I suggest deleting this article, because it contains mainly speculation. Even the lemma fails to mention that the article is about an airplane crash.

--195.246.100.57 (talk) 12:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your statement refers to a prior version of the article. As far as I can see the current version is correct despite being poorly referenced. --Herodes111 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cooler pic

There should be a picture of the explosion. That fireball was seriously cool. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.118.183 (talk) 03:26, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide a properly licensed picture, you are welcome to add it. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

N949CA & N8 102 & National Cargo 102 & National Cargo 102 heavy

These should redirect here, being the tail number (thus identifying the particular airplane involved, just as well as the flight does), the IATA airline code and flight number (companion to the ICAO airline code and flight number redirect) and the callsign+flight number -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

The article states the origin as Bagram. The official site of National Air Cargo states the origin as Camp Bastian. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems as if it had stopped at Bagram to refuel "National Flight NCR102 was en route to Dubai from Camp Bastian and had stopped to refuel at Bagram Air Base." I am unsure as to what the best definition is for flight origin, but I think it would be confusing to switch the flight origin in the infobox to be Camp Bastian without further explanation of the flight's trip. Additionally, while the website you cited may have some bias (ie liability) it does raise the fact that the previous take-off and landing were uneventful and no changes were made to the cargo load. Rgrasmus (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it seems fantastically improbable that the plane went to Bagram to refuel. Dubai is an extremely sophisticated airport with abundantly available cheap fuel, Bagram is a problematical airfield with limited supplies of amazingly expensive fuel and it isn't even headed on the direction of the UK. Nobody in their right mind would plan a otentially dangerous and expensive redundant short hop 90 degrees off route with a heavily laden 747 just to top up. I don't know why it was at Bagram but it must have had serious business to do there, and if it did of course it would also refuel. E x nihil ^(talk) 00:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all airfields will have sufficient fuel to refuel a large aircraft like a 747 especially if they only normally operate small aircraft and/or helicopters.

The accident occurred BTW because the 4-ton vehicles loaded were supposed to be secured using chains whereas the people loading the aircraft instead used nylon straps which then broke as the aircraft climbed allowing the now-loose vehicles to slide rearwards thus shifting the aircraft's CofG backwards and making the aircraft uncontrollable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.207 (talk) 10:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't caused by either the choice of restraining material or CofG. Nylon straps could easily have done the job, but they simply did not use nearly enough of them and incorrectly applied them (wrong angle) mainly because the airline company had made completely inadequate calculations when making their instruction manual. In fact this plane could not have carried five such vehicles safely restrained at all. As for the CofG, the broken free vehicles didn't just slide backwards a bit, they rolled with quite a speed and the rear one slammed straight through the rear pressure bulkhead, destroying key flight controls in the process. The key destroyed component was the horizontal stabilizer's jackscrew. The NTSB did extensive tests and determined that if that hadn't been destroyed, the pilots should have been able to recover the plane from its initial excessive pitching. It's all in the report.T v x1 13:44, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It had to make a detour via Bagram because they didn’t have permission to fly over Pakistan. T v x1 15:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit removing mention of the original operator of the aircraft

IMO there should be no mention of the original operator in the article, as there is a chance some readers will draw the conclusion that it had something to do with the crash. If the investigation finds that the original operator did have something to do with the crash, then that information can be added to the article. In addition, the ref added by the same edit is from planespotters.net, which is a WP:SPS. YSSYguy (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the original operator should not be mentioned for the reasons you gave. --Herodes111 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

National-Airlines-flight-102.ogg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]